mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Evaluating Open-Weight LLMs for Generating Structured Threat Information for Autonomous Vehicle Vulnerabilities

arXiv 2607.16175 ↗First posted 17 Jul 2026cs.CR cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (CAVs) rely on interconnected software and hardware components, including sensors, Electronic Control Units, in-vehicle infotainment systems, and telematics units, where vulnerabilities can compromise assets, users, and vehicle operations. These vulnerabilities are commonly documented as plain text in the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) database; however, security practitioners require structured information about affected assets, types of weaknesses, and attack behaviors to effectively mitigate the risks from these vulnerabilities. To this end, we evaluate open-weight Large Language Models (LLMs) for generating Structured Threat Information Expression (STIX), a well-known structured format for representing threat information, for CAV-related CVEs. We construct a dataset called CAV-STIXGen that maps CAV vulnerability descriptions to STIX domain objects (SDO), STIX relationship objects (SRO), Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE), and MITRE ATT&CK techniques mappings. Using this dataset, we evaluated 11 open-weight LLMs (4B to 120B parameters) across various prompting strategies and temperatures. Single-model configurations achieve F1 scores of 0.94 for SDO, 0.63 for SRO, and 0.99 for CWE mapping, while complete MITRE ATT&CK mapping remains challenging. In a multi-agent setup, Gemma-4-31B and Codestral-22B achieve F1 scores of 0.91 for SDOs and 0.43 for SROs, respectively. Lastly, we analyze CWE and MITRE ATT&CK co-occurrences to identify recurring threat patterns in the CAV domain, demonstrating how AI-assisted vulnerability-to-STIX translation can automate threat intelligence and prioritize defense in transportation security.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 6 of its 20 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Jul 2026.

Builds on

6 of 20 references.

References · 6

  1. 2023Time for aCTIon: Automated Analysis of Cyber Threat Intelligence in the Wildcited by 15
  2. 2021What are the attackers doing now? Automating cyber threat intelligence extraction from text on pace with the changing threat landscape: A surveycited by 14
  3. 2023STIXnet: A Novel and Modular Solution for Extracting All STIX Objects in CTI Reportscited by 10
  4. 2024ThreatPilot: Attack-Driven Threat Intelligence Extractioncited by 6
  5. 2025Security Vulnerabilities in Software Supply Chain for Autonomous Vehiclescited by 4
  6. 2026What Are Adversaries Doing? Automating Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures Extraction: A Systematic Reviewcited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026LLM-Assisted Dynamic Threat Analysis for Attacker-Reachable Software Weaknesses in Autonomous Vehicles
  2. 2026GARAGE: Characterizing the Automation Boundary in LLM-based Attack Graph Generation ↗
  3. 2025STAF: Leveraging LLMs for Automated Attack Tree-Based Security Test Generation
  4. 2025Out of Distribution, Out of Luck: How Well Can LLMs Trained on Vulnerability Datasets Detect Top 25 CWE Weaknesses?
  5. 2025A Large Language Model-Supported Threat Modeling Framework for Transportation Cyber-Physical Systems
  6. 2026ZeroDayBench: Evaluating LLM Agents on Unseen Zero-Day Vulnerabilities for Cyberdefense
  7. 2025Large Language Models in Code Co-generation for Safe Autonomous Vehicles
  8. 2026Taming OpenClaw: Security Analysis and Mitigation of Autonomous LLM Agent Threats